Again going to your claim that the Quran is sorted by length of chapters (starting with longest to ending with shortest) as I earlier stated this is not true. Indeed I used a link from the rather questionable website that you mentioned ReligionofPeace to a online Quran at the University of Southern California (USC). Chapter 1 has 7 verses, chapter 2 has 286, chapter 3 has 200, chapter 8 has 75, chapter 13 have 43 verses, chapter 16 has 128, chapter 24 has 64, chapter 26 has 227 verses, chapter 60 has 13, chapter 68 has 52, chapter 103 has 3, and the final chapter 114 has 6 verses. It's pretty obvious that the Quran is not strictly structured from longest to shortest as you claim. Would you now accept that your statement is incorrect?

Can you run through the numerous major sectarian branches and then place the 4 from the piece?

No it says that there is disageement and there is nothing in the koran itself to support the view given by the 4.

just 4 views out of many many schools do not equal "mainstream".


Don't be silly. It is his long held view and he is always right as he is an expert:rotfl2:
though isn't it funny that he always says there is only one version and one interpretation yet now says you have a different version, plus of course as he says the writing of the texts becomes increasingly vague and careless as it progresses where does that leave his claim about the clear meaning and only interpretation of the text?

What is the betting there will follow a wall of text which is a cut and paste of a wall of text insisting that he is an expert on your religion so you are wrong as he read a book and you havn't read a book ?:hmmm:

Although I should have known better, I checked my copy and checked again with two academic books of secondary literature. I am right. where you count the number of Suras, I count the number of pages, this is what I mean with "length".

In the opened book, the copy I have has german left and arabic right on the pages. It does not matter if I focus on the one or the other when counting. I counted the first ten suras, then took a few samples in the middle, and looked at the end of it, where the Suras are just a third or a fourth of one page in length.

Still, I have not counted the pages of every sura now. My major basis thus remains to be founded in academic secondary literature where it also is claimed that the suras in the Quran are sorted by length (of text), with the exception of the introductory first sura, which is even not one full page.

It would have been a little sensation if the research tradition in the West on the Islam and the Orient, and what we call "Orientalistik" in german, would have gotten this detail wrong for over 150 years.

So, by "length", I - and obviously also at least a big majority of authors in the field - refer to length of text. Number of verses in one Sura is just that - number of verses. But the verses can be long or short, so that is no qualified criterion to judge the length of a Sura.

If you would have asked me about how many verses there are in the Suras, I would have agreed with you from the beginning on.

Anyhow. Small little escapades like this help nobody anything. The content of the ideology and the question if the general trend of history caused by them reflects this content or not - that is what it is about. Unfortunately, it does. And while there may be many Muslims not firing an active gun in jihad, and stay peacefully at home, right this peacefulness may be the great problem with them - becasue they do nothing to confront Islam with critical questions and do not help one bit to overcome it's old dogma, but with their passivity they create the window of opportunity for Islam to carry on like it has done since ever, and their devout and fataloistic attitude is both conseqeunce of past stagnation, and cause stagnation not to end.

what is needed indeed, like quite some critical Muslims and apostates say, i s a wide-ranging, big sexual revolution. For one reason, to end the slavery of women which islam propagates, and for another, to blow some fresh air through the crusty ignition plugs of this old rotten brain.

In some papers I've written on this subject, I've recommended that people attempt to look at the situation through a lens I like to call the "Alien Effect". Despite the fact that it clearly sounds hokey, it certainly helps me at least find perspective on such unclear issues.

The Alien Effect essentially means attempting to consider the same arguments with the same circumstances except as one would apply them to unknown aliens from outerspace. The reason this works for me is that sometimes I believe its necessary to remove oneself's intuitive reactions from the discussion and that's quite difficult to do when considering one human to the next - we tend to think in terms of "how would I feel?" while dismissing that there are cultural differences which preclude such an elemantary comparison.

For example, let's say we discovered an inhabited island in the Pacific where the humans there tortured and killed their children for such transgressions as, say, slow educational development. This would universally be considered an outrage. However, say we discovered an alien species from another planet doing the same thing - this would be a mere curiousity.

So in the case of Islam, let's consider the Alien Effect. If we discovered aliens who's constitution required for the elimination of our way of life, would we allow them to construct icons to that constitution in our cities?

Absolutely not.

See, Steve is correct via the letter of the law, and he has a valid concern - if we take action against Islam, what's to stop any majority from taking action against any other group on the grounds that they believe it's dangerous? He is quite justified in having that concern.

On the other hand, the letter of the law can only take you so far, than the law's spirit must take over, ultimately giving way to common sense. In the end, giving in to the slippery slope argument is a cop-out. It allows us to not make difficult stands on things that we really should. If the alternative is to allow the subversion of freedom in support of freedom we approach a dangerous paradox which does not allow freedom to exist at all, thereby precluding the original concept of freedom rendering it irrelevant to the context.

So what's the solution? Do we allow aliens to build their icons of our destruction? Is there an absolute right or wrong answer?

Does freedom even matter when freedom allows for itself to be destroyed?

Personally, I believe that freedom needs reasonable limits, one of which is that the preservation of its primary functions is imperative. Islam IS a threat to that - just like the aliens would be.

However, pragmatism demands we coexist. Hence the difficulty of the discussion.

So very short, long longest 2nd longest shorter longer longer shorter longer is sorting by length and sky is right :har::har::har::har:

But what about popper, surely he has some comment to make?:rotfl2:

Length of text? So one with more words with more letters might be longer than one with the same amount of words but less letters.
Oh dear Sky is really digging himself a hole instead of just saying ...."OK I was full of crap":yeah:



Getting caught again making stuff up and still insisting its true doesn't help you at all. Its the repeated escapades like this that destroy what very little credibility sky retains.:up:

This is a long but necesarry refutation of Skybird's claim
 

And your copy of the Quran is what exactly? Can you please provide bibliography of your ‘two academic books of secondary literature? Are you sure you are right? It might be you who has a dodgy copy of the Quran. But please see further below.
I think you are confusing surahs (chapters) with ayaats (verses). Yes I counted the number of ayaats (verses) as a quick and simple visible demonstration that there are surahs that are longer in length than earlier ones. This directly contradicts your assertion that the Quran goes from longest to shortest even when you then later changed your mind and said with the exception of the first chapter surah Al-Fatihah. But more detail on this below.
That doesn’t seem a very precise or mathematical way of drawing your conclusion.

Again I ask that you provide details of this ‘academic secondary literature’ that you keep referring to? And yes I am in agreement with you that the best and accurate method of measuring length is by the amount of text. And by that I mean the number of words, not the number of pages. After all academic thesis are measured by word count and not page count for obvious reasons. As is what constitutes a novel or short story is dictated by word count and not page count. So let’s look at word count within the Quran.

Again for this exercise I will use the online translation of the Quran that is linked to from the very un-academic website TheReligionofPeace that you referenced with a multitude of links in one of your earlier posts. The actual link itself to the University of Southern California looks credible as all three translations offered online (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthall, and MH Shakir) all match the hard copies that I own at home. As Skybird and various unknown academic secondary literature claim, the Quran is written from longest chapter (excluding chapter 1 as now admitted by Skybird) to shortest chapter. This is a patently false claim as demonstrated many times within the Quran.

Let’s look at surah 32 (chapter 32) titled As-Sajdah. It contains 30 ayaat (30 verses). And here it is below in full from the Yusaf Ali translation:
Now I determined the word count on this to be 841 or 809 if you deduct the ayaat (verse) numbers. Hence you would expect that the next chapter will be shorter based on the claims of Skybird and undisclosed academic sources.

Continued on next post below.

Continued from the above post
 

So let’s have a look at surah 33 (chapter 33) titled Al-Ahzab which contains 73 ayaat (verses). Again this is from the Yusaf Ali translation:
You don't even need to know the word count of this chapter. It is simple to compare it to the earlier quoted chapter and realize that it's length is much much greater. But for sake of accuracy and methodology the word count on this next chapter is 2744 or 2671 if you deduct the ayaat (verse) numbers. So what we see here is that the following chapter is over three times the length of the previous chapter. Now this completely goes against the claim that the Quran is written from longest to shortest chapter. There are many other examples that also underline this claim as nothing more than a falsehood or myth.


And using that length of text methodology I have demonstrated above that your claim and indeed that of a so-called ‘big majority of authors in the field’ is patently and totally false.
Indeed you are correct. Hence why I used the methodology that you and I agree is the most accurate and only true way of measuring length. I was simply lazy earlier when I referred to ayaat (verses) as an indication of length as I thought that it would have been obvious looking at the original source being the Quran. So here I have shrugged off that laziness and documented in full.

You mean that the facts are not important. Simple fundamental facts regarding the structure of the Quran are escapades. In final conclusion as mentioned a couple of paragraphs earlier, the claim that the Quran is structured beginning with the longest chapter and concluding with the shortest chapter is completely false and without any foundation. Skybird, would you now accept that you are wrong on this issue?

Sigh.

I must not take this "discussion" overly important, must I? So again I shortcut it, it really is not worth to invest so much time into it:

http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Chapter4.html
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/texts/quran.htm

Use Google, you will find many sites, blogs, transcriptions like this. The general rule is like I say and like Western traditon of academic research on Islam sees it since 150 years: the whole thing generally follows the rule of decreasing length of suras from start to end, and the chronological order being ignored. If you do not believe that latter as well, google for it, there are many sites that give you Quran versions in which the Suras are sorted in chronological sequence. It helps to use such a version in order to solve contradictions between different passages, because you can easily see which of the two statements in different suras is the later one and thus: the valid (abrogation principle).

This cosmetic detail on length of suras is so very important, isn't it?! You just picked it because you thought you could easily discredit me when showing that I was "wrong" on something, even such an unimportant detail, eh? Well, mission failed, I would say.

I'll leave it to that, Konovalov. You are a Western convert, and you married a Muslim woman. I do not judge the one or the other decision and I do not attack you over it (though by attitude I question the wisdom of the first decision, but it is your life, not mine). But I conclude from both these decisions you made that it is extremely unlikely that you, as a voluntary convert to Islam , will ever gain an objective stand towards Islam. I talked a very few original Muslims into apostacy, but with a convert I would not even try that. Fact is that converts tend to behave even more in conformity with the dogma as they see it then the original followers of said dogma, because they are driven by a desire or a feeling that they must "prove" how really devout they are indeed. That makes converts often even more orthodox than original orthodox - and not just in case of Islam, but in case of any religous converting.

Seen that way, the discussion is probably doomed to be lost from start on. You are defending Islam, and I would ideally favour a solution of no Islam in the West at all, or any other part of the world. I am adamant on this, and you are on your position. that makes the issue a question of what camp has the greater power to push back the other. and that is what puts us into different teams, forever. Personally, I do not have something against you, and in the first contatcs of ours I learned to know you as a kind and friendly guy, I assume you indeed mean it well. But that cannot change the fact that I think you are basing on dangerous illusions. I also see you as somebody who is dangerous himself but is not aware of it, because by your mere presence Islam in the west is by the number of heads in your family stronger than it would be if you would chose to live with your wife in Pakistan, which was her home, if I remember correctly, or any other Muslim country.

So, maybe we stay separate, you and me. I really do not enjoy colliding with you - but I also refuse to give ground to you, and if collision is the price for that, so be it. ;)

However, for today I have to leave.

No, it says the traditional view, that is "unanimous" is that death is it. It then lists specific people who disagree, and at every turn says they are outside the mainstream of islamic thought.

Below, it list countries. Saudi—death, Iran, death (there are sunni and shia right there--the vast majority of muslims).

Don't bring my family or personal life into it please. Play the ball and not the man.
 

Skybird,

Why do you bring my personal life into this? You have no reason or need to. And no my wife is not from Pakistan. You say that you do not judge or attack me for decisions yet in the same breath you draw wacked out conclusions that I am extremely dogmatic and unobjective. You'd think that you had sat me down on the nutters couch for hours on end to come up with this psycho babble stuff. Really poor form from you. :down:

You weren't man enough to answer Sailor Steve's simple questions over god knows how many pages of this topic. And now you avoid mine. The facts have been laid bare on such a basic and minor issue yet still you cannot simply accept that what you claimed was false. I asked some very straightforward questions on this subject and not once in post after post did you answer them. Instead you go off on all these tangents regarding Islam and then you scrape the bottom of the barrel by bringing my personal life and family into it. As someone who once was so hurt by other members breaching your trust by leaking Skybird PM's onto the GT forum you appeared to have changed your tune. Again how lame. :down:

The bottom line is that you do not know me and what is just as obvious is that you do not know your subject matter. Heaven forbid that you put me on your ignore list because you can't handle being challenged on occasion. Again I would request that you refrain from trying to draw conclusions on me as a person and my family. I have diligently stayed on topic here and I would appreciate if you would do the same in future. Play the ball and not the man please.

Liar:har::har::har:
No, you have already been exposed again as a liar so your carrying on lying isn't important as it is increasingly well established.

wow , so for your secondary educational source of academic wisdom you post a link to some complete fruitloop:rotfl2:
Convert the jews to jesus as the 70th week of armageddon is at hand?????:doh:
Still I suppose its better than a link about blacks and muslims ruining soccer



How can it be unanimous when it is only 4 besides which a traditional view means nothing if you are talking of the scriptural view, and after all your point was that the problem was the scriptures themselves not the various interpretations some have put on them.


Mainstream??? there is no mainstream.

Saudi, what flavour is saudi?
Iran, well done, their "spiritual leader" and "great religious teacher" last month said music was wrong and should not be indulged in an Islamic country. Pretty damning stuff really, after all you can use that as a measurefor Irans other "religious" rulings.
The Grand ayaytollah had to admit that his ideass actually had no scripture to back them up and that music was indeed halal....but that it was unislamic:doh:

What you have succeeded in doing tater is insisting that it is the scriptures that are the problem on several points but demonstrating that it is the people who are claiminng to follow scripture on those points when they are not that is the problem.

Konovalov,


I'm just be back from an afternoon and evening in town (btw. with a Syrian "Muslim", if that is not ironic, who gives as much for Ramadan and Quran as I do - nothing :haha: ), and here I find you now with a red face and a glow in your eyes - and over what? Bean counting, and a good ammount of personal animosity.

"Dogmatic?" You? Where have I claimed that? My problem with your claimed Muslimhood is that you are not "dogmatic" with regard to Islam'S real dogma! That was always my assessement of you, since five years or so! but you got stuck elsewhere, but on that: later.

I said that voluntary converts tend to be more holy than the original followers of the relgion they converted to, which is a known phenomenon in all religions, contributing often to the amusement of the original followers who may see things and rules more relaxed, maybe. I did not say I see you as a wacko, nor is my assessement of you just wacked. If you want to know it, I see you as somebody who indeed strongly believes what he has converted to, the problem just is that you are beautifying it and do not realise it for what it really is. You always gave me the impression to simply and blindly follow what somebody has told you about it, and you did not give me an impression to crticially pout it into question. That i mean not as an attack or offence, that is simply a sober description of the impression you gave me.

I have no doubt that you do not beat your wife, and that you do not propagate armed subjugation of us infidels and that you do not support terrorism. And that is - what you also do not like to be told, i know - why I do not see you as a real Islamic Muslim, but a self-defined Muslim who understands the term not by the original rules, but by hiw own romantic imagination about what it is - I see you as somebody who just wants to claim he is Muslim, but defines "Muslim" in a way that he must not rethink his opinion on it and must not realise its harsh and barbaric essence. Because islam - orders you to supress your wife and beat her if she is disobedient, islam demands you since your converting that you must seek the subjugation of the infidels in the name of islam, this is no voluntary option for you as a male, but a mandatory duty that you have to obey to. The history of a whole cultural sphere reflects right this, since over one millenium: intolerance, sexual slavery and supression, supremcist claims for dominance. I do not see you as a Muslim wacko. I see you as a naive Westerner who is trying to make something seeming better than it is. Why you were attracted to Islam, I do not know. But if I recall it correctly, you have introduced yourself as a convert to islam several times over the years and again just short time ago in one posting after your long absence here. So I do not see that I am giving away great secrets from your private life.

You also said in public in earlier times that you are married to a Muslim woman from a Muslim family, and I seemed to recall that it was a Pakistani family. You say that is wrong, okay I recalled it wrong (I also recall a certain old email of yours, but maybe I remember it wrong, too). I do not comment on your wife beyond this and in no way pulled her into all this or wished to minimise her in a derogatory way. And I didn't. So what is your problem? I explicitly said that I do not judge this family aspect, and that I just referred to your act of voluntary converting. and that is public part of your biography - you gave it away all yourself. And since you made that decision, you cannot expect me or the public or anybody to ignore that. You did it, and also: you voluntary made it known to a wide public. so I do not see your problem when I refer to what you have given away yourself, and not in a private mail to me, but on the public board. If you do not want people knowing all this, you should not have released it to the public. On other aspects of your private life I have not commented. first, I never would do that, and second, I also do not know it.

Oh, now it is not a question of reason or logic, but manhood, well, that I was confronted with quite often in oriental countries: manhood. Plenty of men running around, constantly being obsessed with "manhood".

Well, manhood certainly was not the problem between Steve and me.

Here you show what queer spirit's brainchild you have become. Maybe indeed you have become more muslim over the past couple of years than I would have thought back those years: a certain ammount of islamophile opportunism I certainly cannot deny to testify in your favour. but Steve constructed a very absurd argument and opushed his defintion to self-contradictory, absiolute extreme, while leaving unadressed until the end my initial question to him at the same time what he will do against freedombeing abused to destroy freedom, because his model of absolute freedom does not give him a solution to the dilemma I pointed at. Read again the attempt of Kazuaki to moderate, his summary of Steve's and my position in that analogy of armies that he used. He described Steve and me perfectly. Not every question has or even needs an answer. Steve's "question" was one of these.

When now you think you must fall back to Steve'S undefendable claim, then I suspect this is for pure opportunism: because Steve's model of unlimited freedom gives Islam what it wants: the space and opportunity to unfold without giving others the chance of resistence, and becoming stronger and stronger, more influential, more powerful. You support this, because you seem to have a very beautified idea of what islam is, while violating some of its basic rules at the same time - those rules that to you would demonstrate to what degree it is on confrontation course with the values that you, as a Westerner, has been raised with (at least I assume you have been risen in the western cultural value tradition of humanism and the meaning of terms like freedom, liberty, dignity, tolerance, peace, science, reason).

My thesis is that you are locked in the classical case of cognitive dissonnance, and you avoid the conflicting part by refusing to realise reality, but creating your own idea of reality that then replaces true reality in your thinking. that is a problem that is widespread amingst socalled, and often seld-claimed, "moderate" Muslims. I have des cribed it often enough, and as i see it, you also fall into this category. That's why i do not think that you have turned violent or radical, and that you probably never will: you really believe what you say, and you really believe Islam is like you see it: but as I see it we are not talking about islam itself, but about a brainchild of yours, let's call it Konovalovism. You indeed mean it well, I am perfectly aware of that: its just that i also see that in your reasonable and kind attitude you are not about the islam that Ii over the years have learned to realise, that is led out in Quran and Sharia, that is anything but klind and reasonable as long as oyu do not fully submit to it, and that Western orientalists have analysed and described since long time.

By this you do not want to be dangerous to the West, but nevertheless you help to create space for manouvering, and opportunity to advance for Islam - the real, the grim, the conquering, the subjugating, the totalitarian Islam. You do that, because you base on your "idea" only. Quite some muslims in the West do like you do. Often I have said that I am perfectly aware of such "Muslims" being non-violent (but also actively refusing to integrate, on the other hand). but right in this passivity of theirs lies the problem: by silently tolerating islam and not standing up against it, they help it to move on, and their refusal to itegration also establishes parrallel societies and subcultures that want to remain closed and separate, and turn the hosting nation upside down in hte hotspots where they gain sufficient strength in numbers. and this porblem is almost infectous, and spreading in cities throughout europe.

If you cannot see why 21 pages is considered to be "longer" than let'S say 18 pages, then I cannot help it. Until the laws of mathematics are changed, I stick with what I see with my eyes when I hold that book in my hands, and I stick with the academic tradition and the literature of analysing Islam that it has produced over the past 150-200 years. The statetment stands, not just because I say it, but because it has been found to be true over and over again, in so many books in so many nations and languages written by so many people who know islam better than me (or you). As a general trend oyu see the longest suras in the beginning, and the shortest at the end. And length usually is not defined by number of suras, but by printed space in a book. Like at school or university the duration of a lesson is not measured in number of sentences spoken by the prof, or avergae sentence length, but total time in hours and minutes. At least that's how we do it in the West - counting Australia as a western-influenced nation.

I will not repeat ONCE AGAIN long topics and essays of mine which cost me time and will not be welcomed by most people anyway - it has all been done several times now over the years (search button ;) ). I told you that from beginning on, that therfore I answer your question on Quran references to violence or what it was, by taking a shortcut and just linking just any site listing you quotes and quotes and quotes. I told you that I am aware of the context-sensitivity, and I explained why often the claimed context of Islam just acting in defence, to me all too often is no non-starter: due to islam'S queer understanding of what an offense and what an attack by the other is: and that is to resist to Islam, that already qualifies as an attack or offence. By that, islam claims that every victim of it - is actually the agressor against which islam just defends, like the girl that gets victim of a gang rape - is punished for being raped and the male rapists benefitting from double-counted witness testimonies anyway.

I wonder what you believe to know on the subject. Just being indoctrinated by an imam who is imam just for that: to indoctrinate and give Islam a good polish, is nothing that wins too much respect from me. If you want an objective assessement of catholicism - would you consider it to be a good idea if you ask especially the vatican about it...? IknowIknow, there are also some good folks. But you get the general idea of my point. the imam and the vatican, both have an interest-conflict if being asked for objectivity.

No, never anybody has been put on my ignore list because of just a disagreement that became loud, or different arguments, never, not a single time. All people on that list are there mostly for either repeated offendings, or just one offending but that one already being a good ammount of callibre, and some also for time and again using trolling tactis or verbal cheats and tricks, misquoting me intentionally, putting it into incorrect contexts while ignoring the correct one. So in short: I put people on ignore lists for questions of heavily offending behavior, or trolling - not becaseu they disagree with me or I do not like their argument. It's as if you are giving aparty. If a guest behaves too badly, you throw him out. If I am tired of an argument, I simply leave the debate in question sooner or later. Mostly later. :) BTW, sometimes, if after a longer time I do not remember anymore what it was about, I even release a name from that list again. :) doesn't happen often, but it happens.

Again, I cannot see that i played foul against you personally. I mentioned two facts about you, both of which you have given away to the public, not just in an email to me. I made it clear that I link no moral or personal judgement with the one, and sticked with the other. And that is no secret at all, as far as I see it. If I once told the board my starsign is Aquarius, I cannot complain if people at occasion may refer to that.

I am on topic, but you have imagined I would play ball in a way that you can shoot at my goal with my goalie taking a time-out. I also refuse to put so much attention and energy into bean-counting, like you do: the Quran's suras in general sorted by length. I stick with what I and many authors say on that, and I think it is totally unimportant. the lngth of various suras is the smallest of all porblems with the Quran. You make it a sky-high issue trying to squeeze something out of that that you can use against me. that is - distracting and irritating at best. we could as well debate why a Quaran printed in bigger letters on the same paper size has more pages inside it. And if I do not ONCE AGAIN answer that second question of yours what version I have, then this is because over the years you have asked me at least THREE TIMES now. This may be very important to you, this kind of bean-counting. To me, it is not. what counts to me is the content of the IDEOLOGY, what it makes people do when they obey it, how people'S behavior must be in order that this ideology claims them to be heretics und punishes them, and whether or not the unfolding of history is in conformity with the declared aims and goals of that ideology, or not, whether the historic example confirms or falsifies said claims of said ideology. And you count words, over that collide with the basic fact that the Suras in general are sorted by length (sorry, my untrustworthy eyes, the mad academics at university, we all are mad you know) and make a big show of when somebody referes to one piece of info about yourself that you have released to the board yourself at least twice in the distant past, and i think once again just shorter time ago. Forgive my lacking precison on time and date, but I do not write it all down in a little notebook.

It comes down to this, Konovalov. whether you are aware of it or not, for you, Shariah has to be the top authority in life if you really want to be Muslim in real isalami understanding. that has to be your priroity, before the nationaliuty porinted in you passport, before your loaylaty to any country, and before your symoathy for wetsern values. If you want to be a real Muslim, you have no choice than to place all this below the absolute do,mancance of shriah. You cannot avoid Shariah, and just poick of it what occasionally, opportunistacally, sometimes may fit your needs - it'S claim is that of total, absolute, unconditional dominance. the moment you convrted to islam, islam's demand that you have to leave behind nationality and loyxalty to Wetsern constitutional orders and value systems has won authorit yover you. where oyu do not obey that, you are violating the very heart and essence of islam, and thus are not rerally a muslim. either you never was, or you already have become an apostate again, no matter whether oyur realise that or not.

you are either unconditionally for Shariah and against wetsern law and nation, or you are not unconditinally for shariah - then you are a traitor to islam's self-understanding. that's bitter. That's harsh. that's merciless.

But that is where i see you hang gotten stuck in.

And I think about you that way since long time. If your muslim friends that influenced you to convert, did not tell you these consequences in full clearness, or glossed over them, then they have misled you, and are false friends.

---

This reply only becasue I feel unlegitimately targetted by you with claims of violating your personal sphere.

Today I had one non-Muslim Muslim admitting he is non-Muslim and pumped me up with steak and beer, and another non-Muslim Muslims who denies to be non-muslim and tries to be very strict a Muslim and who pumps me even more up up with words. that's a bit too much of non-Musliminism for just 12 hours, so I now leave it here, relax and then go to bed. :DL

Take care of yourself, Konovalov. ;)

Errrrrr, number of pages have nothing to do with length of text.
Though I am sure that in antiquity religious scholars decided to sort scripture on the basis of how many pages it would take in a printed german translation:yeah:
You lied again and were caught out again, live with it:haha:

Yep, caught out again and again. Sadly his way of dealing with that is to turn the subject personally onto me and my muslimhood (whatever the heck that means). Of course the mass volumes of text on me and my personal faith had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. Again we are confronted by another wall of text and obfuscation. :zzz:

I know its so sad to see the way he carries on.
His phobia has so taken over that his mind is losing function.
I do like the way that he manages to destroy his own arguements though